It was a good movie, but I found it kind of weird. It almost felt like another reboot of the Bond franchise. The actor may have been the same, but this movie just felt so separated from the other two Daniel Craig films. "Casino Royale" and "Quantum of Solace" felt, to me, as if they were setting up a trilogy. I was expecting Skyfall's story to be more related to the events of the first two films.

And while I thought what's-his-face did a great job playing Silva, I couldn't help thinking that I had no idea who this guy was. His "turn to the dark side" and his vendetta against M would have worked better if we had actually met the guy before.

When they finally got around to revealing him as the villain, I kept expecting to see a familiar face. Imagine if Silva was played by Sean Connery or Roger Moore (or hell, even Pierce Brosnan)! An old 007 turned bad! Now THAT would have been awesome.

I said some negative things about Craig's Bond in the past, and decried the general state of the Bond franchise's "new direction". The only reason the last two films and Craig himself never made the absolute bottom of my lists was because the Dalton Bonds (and Dalton) existed.

I fully expected to not like this movie when a friend asked me if I wanted to go see it (his treat). And, indeed, I really didn't like about the first 50-60% of the film, same "tired" feel to the presentation. Craig "thugging" his way through the role. Absolutely hated the whole "eye in the sky" thing with M basically running the mission from London.

Then the story took everything I thought was wrong with this incarnation of Bond and very self-awaredly used it in story to turn the film 180 degrees hard over.

Everyone was saying that MI-6 as run by M and as represented by Bond was "a dinosaur", "old", "played out", etc. "We don't do things that way any more..." and so forth.

But it was those "old, played out dinosaurs" who, in the end, got the job done where the "new" MI-6 was constantly one step behind because in the 21st century, everyone (including the enemy) knows all the high-tech tricks. Or to paraphrase Bond "It's time to do things Old School..." (cue the Aston Martin :thumbsup.

I thought Mallory was a prick, but he redeemed himself nicely during the battle at the Ministry hearing, which (going back to the hearing before the attack) was very nicely done, with Dame Judith's M finally stating in story the film's thesis as I outlined it above. Bonus points for her inclusion of one of my favorite bits of poetry (Ulysses).

By the time the film was over, and we were in the last scenes in the office, I was sold, both on Bond (again) and on Craig's ability to play the more "glam" Bond, double-entendres and all. They even went back to acutal PAPER files. That which is not online cannot be hacked, after all.

In short, I LOVED this movie...can't wait to see the next one if it's going to continue this "soft reboot"...

Saw this in the worst theater in the local multiplex, dimmest picture and worst sound and completely level floor. I couldn't tell what happened on the train. The most interesting thing was the sudden appearance of a length of loose chain. If it was Bond who was supposed to have been shot and fallen off the train into the river, he was killed. I suppose this makes the new Bond series a paranormal romance? Ghost Bond in his own little dream world?

Javier Bardem's plan to be captured makes as much sense as Loki's plan to be captured in The Avengers. Bardem's ability to hack their system meant that he could have kidnapped Judi Dench instead of blowing up the headquarters, rendering the largest part of the action pointless.

Also, all those shenanigans over the urge to kill one woman? How do you recruit dozens of men to die for one man's hobby? None of this is about things that really matter. It was especially difficult to believe that today's intelligence services really have their own officers infiltrating anything. They just entrap overexcited by gullible young men.

Bardem's sexual menaces to Craig were deftly countered with the question about the first time. The whole gay issue is just a joke. Torture scenes that are jokes are very Joss Whedon Quimself. I suppose this is good if you admire Quimself, I don't. Ben Whishaw may pose a real gay issue but that's kind of reaching for offense I think.

I wasn't excited about going back to the 60's with Moneypenny and male M, so the denouement was at best bemusing.

I went with family members for the holiday. Happily a couple were much more satisfied, but I was pretty bored. The most interesting thing in the movie was the remarkable empty subway train. The action sequences were smoothly done, but they didn't matter, any more than Bond matters. C-

I think the NY review is a bit dour but have some sympathy on the pre-credit sequence. The Coren piece is interesting read and comments are a riot

Click to expand...

Coren makes a complete a** out of himself. He completely ignores or dismisses the context of both the shower scene (she invited Bond to the boat), and the "William Tell" scene (Bond was trying to not show weakness in front of Silva).

Regarding his other two major points against the film:

1) Judi Dench’s ‘M’ dies, and is replaced by a man;

Click to expand...

Doesn't automatically make it mysogynist or anti-woman. Spies die, unfortunately. Does Coren really expect that there would never ever be another male "M"?

and

3) The pretty girl who manages to remain chaste despite Bond’s ‘charms’ is rewarded at the end with a job as his secretary.

Click to expand...

Again, Coren is completely ignoring the whole subplot about her deciding she was not a good field agent and choosing a desk job.

He's also ignores her very competent showing in the casino, which makes her more than the token "pretty girl who resists Bond's charms"

Finally, Coren also apparently does not understand the significance of the "shaving" scene. Bond has monumental trust issues, both as a result of his profession AND his personal experience with Eve. That he would allow her to put a deadly blade to his throat is a demonstration that he in fact does trust her immensely, teasing remarks notwithstanding.

Coren comes off as the typical "feminist man", bending over backwards to find and decry misogyny to establish that he's "not like that".

I think the question is not about any argument within the context of the film as shown...it's about whether it needed to be written that way in the first place.

I think most of the complaints are pretty baseless, but I think exploiting the sex slavery trade, which is very much in the public consciousness right now, and then offing the victim of such a trade so carelessly, without any comment in the film of the tragedy of the situation, is kind of crass.

After the movie my buddy and I got into a mild argument over whether or not the sex-slave gal actually died. I had seen that she did, that the guy shot her in the head rather than also "missing" the shot glass, causing her to pass out and drop the glass (as my friend thought.)

He was basically taking the "we never saw the body..." approach.

I was taking the, "She slept with James Bond, once she did that she was on borrowed time" approach.